Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I'll bet once it hits the arbitrator, it will get reduced. Bettman's will likely uphold the 20 games, but some evidence will be introduced to garner a reduction to around 10. That's my best guess.

I agree with this. I don't see how an arbitrator goes more than the 10 games required under Rule 40.3 (for deliberate contact without intent to injure). In order to get 20 games under Rule 40.2, there has to be deliberate contact that either (1) causes and injury or (2) intends to injure the official. For the "intent" portion, it's incredibly difficult to uphold a finding of "intent to injure". It wasn't the sort of contact that is likely to cause injury (such as a slash to an exposed part of the body or an intentional head shot) and if Wideman was having any mental difficulty at all it could also nullify his mental state. Wideman is also claiming that he didn't intend to hit him, let alone injure him, so the burden is on the league to rebut his claims.

For the "cause an injury" part, Henderson remained in the game, which still had another 28+ minutes remaining. He was later hospitalized with "concussion-like symptoms" that night, but there is no indication from the reports that he was actually diagnosed with a concussion. And even if he was diagnosed with an actual concussion, Wideman did not make contact with Henderson's head and Henderson's head did not contact the boards or the ice after the check, so proving causation would be a little tenuous. This situation is much different than, say, a slash to a body part that causes a specific and direct injury to that body part (screw you, Jared Cowen ). Contact with one part of the body that leads to an injury to another part of the body, that's hard to prove legally. And again, I believe the burden would be on the league, not Wideman, to prove that Henderson's concussion-like symptoms were caused by Wideman's contact with his back, and not something like dehydration, exhaustion, or perhaps even a scrum later in the game between other players.

This seems like a slam-dunk for the NHLPA to get the suspension reduced. We'll see what happens...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As for the intent portion, it's hard to believe that Wideman didn't see him at all, considering he was directly in front of him. That's a pretty weak defense on his part. Added to it is that Wideman extended out with his arms, which was a completely unnecessary action on his part. This wasn't just a bump that ended badly. Wideman full on shoved the linesman from behind. I'm not sure intent is that hard to prove here. This wasn't an opposing player. It was an official. In hard to miss black and white stripes. Directly in front of Wideman's view. When there is so much going against Wideman here, I'm not so sure that the burden of proof is so heavily on the league. Just look at the video, and I think it's tough to find a defense for Wideman. At least one that doesn't come across as outrageous.

Adding to all of this is that Wideman went to the bench and didn't seem to care at all about the linesman that was still laying on the ice. I don't know about anyone else, but if I just floor an official on accident, my first response isn't going to be to go to the bench without a care in the world.

A concussion is Wideman's best, and likely only defense here, and unfortunately there is also a long history of concussions in the NHL, and none of them involve a player attacking an official in this manner. If the arbiter thinks the concussion is enough of a factor to drop it down to the less extreme rule, he could potentially get 10 games minimum, but 20 games is the minimum if they feel Wideman knew what he was doing.

Concussion symptoms don't require a blow to the head. Whiplash has been linked to concussions.

Some of my less versed teammates and friends need far too frequent reminders of this. Just because you didn't hit your head, doesn't mean I didn't see your head rotate way too quickly and I'm suspicious of your confusion afterwards.

As for the intent portion, it's hard to believe that Wideman didn't see him at all, considering he was directly in front of him. That's a pretty weak defense on his part. Added to it is that Wideman extended out with his arms, which was a completely unnecessary action on his part. This wasn't just a bump that ended badly. Wideman full on shoved the linesman from behind. I'm not sure intent is that hard to prove here. This wasn't an opposing player. It was an official. In hard to miss black and white stripes. Directly in front of Wideman's view. When there is so much going against Wideman here, I'm not so sure that the burden of proof is so heavily on the league. Just look at the video, and I think it's tough to find a defense for Wideman. At least one that doesn't come across as outrageous.

Adding to all of this is that Wideman went to the bench and didn't seem to care at all about the linesman that was still laying on the ice. I don't know about anyone else, but if I just floor an official on accident, my first response isn't going to be to go to the bench without a care in the world.

A concussion is Wideman's best, and likely only defense here, and unfortunately there is also a long history of concussions in the NHL, and none of them involve a player attacking an official in this manner. If the arbiter thinks the concussion is enough of a factor to drop it down to the less extreme rule, he could potentially get 10 games minimum, but 20 games is the minimum if they feel Wideman knew what he was doing.

When I first saw the video that was posted to YouTube, Wideman's reaction on the bench was totally wrong, major don't give a flip. That sealed it for me.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Concussion symptoms don't require a blow to the head. Whiplash has been linked to concussions.

Of course, but we're talking about establishing causation from a legal standpoint.

I think the biggest point in Wideman's favor is that Henderson continued to skate for another 28:41 of game action (in addition to lots of skating between whistles and putting himself between opposing players during scrums). Concussion symptoms could have come from continuing to exert himself at a very high level after the hit or from some subsequent incident.

As for your second post about intent, he certainly intended to hit him. But that goes to the issue of "deliberate contact" not "intent to injure". I'm not saying he doesn't get 10 games for deliberate contact. I'm saying he shouldn't get 20 games based on injury or intent to injure.

I also think the league's hands look a little unclean here. Why wasn't Henderson subjected to the concussion protocols immediately after the hit? They're going to fine Calgary for not putting Wideman through the protocols, but they're going to turn a blind eye to the fact that they failed to put Henderson through the protocols? If I'm Wideman's lawyer, I'm making a huge stink about that. If Henderson goes through the protocol immediately after the hit, there's a pretty airtight case. By not doing it immediately, they opened the door to questioning causation.

Oh holy hell, I have lost a lot of respect for Babs after reading that. (I know what PK did in '03, and how it was probably self-driven, but what role did he play in pressuring the training staff if Paul said he wanted to come back.)

I think the biggest point in Wideman's favor is that Henderson continued to skate for another 28:41 of game action (in addition to lots of skating between whistles and putting himself between opposing players during scrums). Concussion symptoms could have come from continuing to exert himself at a very high level after the hit or from some subsequent incident.

I also think the league's hands look a little unclean here. Why wasn't Henderson subjected to the concussion protocols immediately after the hit? They're going to fine Calgary for not putting Wideman through the protocols, but they're going to turn a blind eye to the fact that they failed to put Henderson through the protocols? If I'm Wideman's lawyer, I'm making a huge stink about that. If Henderson goes through the protocol immediately after the hit, there's a pretty airtight case. By not doing it immediately, they opened the door to questioning causation.

It's the hypocritical nature of the league, which is part of the reason I want Jacobs, Campbell and Bettman gone as soon as possible. With two linesmen in the game, they could certainly have sat Henderson while they ran him through whichever (IMPACT, I believe) system they're using as the immediate concussion test. Make the trailing ref police the blueline if things turn.

Not to mention, I suspect-from what I've read of late-inflammatory markers will be identified that will allow for more exacting diagnoses of concussion, and the inflammatory processes already inherent in skating your rear off as lineys could potentially exacerbate things.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Of course, but we're talking about establishing causation from a legal standpoint.

I think the biggest point in Wideman's favor is that Henderson continued to skate for another 28:41 of game action (in addition to lots of skating between whistles and putting himself between opposing players during scrums). Concussion symptoms could have come from continuing to exert himself at a very high level after the hit or from some subsequent incident.

As for your second post about intent, he certainly intended to hit him. But that goes to the issue of "deliberate contact" not "intent to injure". I'm not saying he doesn't get 10 games for deliberate contact. I'm saying he shouldn't get 20 games based on injury or intent to injure.

I also think the league's hands look a little unclean here. Why wasn't Henderson subjected to the concussion protocols immediately after the hit? They're going to fine Calgary for not putting Wideman through the protocols, but they're going to turn a blind eye to the fact that they failed to put Henderson through the protocols? If I'm Wideman's lawyer, I'm making a huge stink about that. If Henderson goes through the protocol immediately after the hit, there's a pretty airtight case. By not doing it immediately, they opened the door to questioning causation.

So your argument is one of coincidence. The linesman just -happened- to get a concussion in the very same game that he was shoved from behind by Wideman? You really think that's going to convince anyone? This isn't a murder trial, so the NHL doesn't need to defend against reasonable doubt.

If the arbiter feels that Wideman intended to hit him, the resulting injury could certainly be enough. Remember that this isn't similar to hitting a player. Hits can go wrong then, and just because an injury results doesn't necessarily mean intent to injure. This is on an individual that Wideman had no business hitting. Had no business even touching. If this were on a player, I'd say you're right, but it isn't. It's on an official.

As for the concussion protocols, the Calgary Flames are the ones responsible for their own players. It's up to them to make sure that proper protocol is followed. In the case of an official, I actually have no idea what the protocol is, if there is a protocol at all. The player protocol is still fairly recently. The NHL may actually not have similar measures in place for the officials. It's stupid that this could actually be the case, but it wouldn't be the first time something so obvious was missed. I'm not going to defend the league if that is the case, but even if it is the case it's still a separate issue from the Wideman incident. Just like any punishment against the Calgary organization would be. The attorney can make as much of a stink as he wants, but how does that impact the decision? It may not make the NHL look clean, but it doesn't make what Wideman did any more appropriate.

In Carcillo's incident, I don't think it's nearly as bad as Wideman's. Yes, Carcillo makes contact with the official. More than once. But the magnitude of it was far less. To me, this incident reinforces that Wideman deserves more than 10 games. I won't try to predict what the result of the appeal will be, but if they use this as a precedent, I think it favors the NHL. It's deliberate contact, but is there really any doubt that Carcillo could have injured the official if he had intended to? In Wideman's case, the best you can say he could have hurt the linesman worse. That's not really the best defense.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So your argument is one of coincidence. The linesman just -happened- to get a concussion in the very same game that he was shoved from behind by Wideman? You really think that's going to convince anyone? This isn't a murder trial, so the NHL doesn't need to defend against reasonable doubt.

If the arbiter feels that Wideman intended to hit him, the resulting injury could certainly be enough. Remember that this isn't similar to hitting a player. Hits can go wrong then, and just because an injury results doesn't necessarily mean intent to injure. This is on an individual that Wideman had no business hitting. Had no business even touching. If this were on a player, I'd say you're right, but it isn't. It's on an official.

As for the concussion protocols, the Calgary Flames are the ones responsible for their own players. It's up to them to make sure that proper protocol is followed. In the case of an official, I actually have no idea what the protocol is, if there is a protocol at all. The player protocol is still fairly recently. The NHL may actually not have similar measures in place for the officials. It's stupid that this could actually be the case, but it wouldn't be the first time something so obvious was missed. I'm not going to defend the league if that is the case, but even if it is the case it's still a separate issue from the Wideman incident. Just like any punishment against the Calgary organization would be. The attorney can make as much of a stink as he wants, but how does that impact the decision? It may not make the NHL look clean, but it doesn't make what Wideman did any more appropriate.

It's not a murder trial, but don't pretend like there aren't specific legal standards in play. The legal standard is actually a "clear and convincing evidence" standard under Article 18.12 of the CBA. That's a high standard. Not "beyond a reasonable doubt" high, but certainly a lot higher than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard which is normal for civil liability cases. Under the CBA-mandated legal standard, the league would have to show that there is an extremely high probability that Henderson's concussion-like symptoms were indeed caused by Wideman's contact with Henderson's back and not from another source (like continuing to be on the ice for 1 1/2 periods after that hit and performing all of the really difficult tasks that linesmen have to do). From a fan standpoint, it makes sense that they were caused by the hit. From a legal standpoint - one that would require justifying a 20-game suspension and losing $500K+ in salary - it's a difficult legal standard for the NHL to prove. I'm not saying they absolutely can't prove it. It's just going to be difficult. Much more difficult than you think. Bettman is also a lawyer, so he should be very familiar with these legal standards. It's not like Roger Goodell, who tried to pretend he was a lawyer during Deflategate and really didn't have the first clue about what he was talking about.

And it's not about "coincidence", it's about meeting a legal standard for demonstrating causation. Coincidence is a fun term for pundits to throw around, but it's not really a term that has any use in the legal context.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Ducks/Kings stadium series game was good enough for me. I don't really care to see the Ducks in another one. The actual hockey game usually isn't as good in the outdoor games compared to normal. It would be cool for Colorado or Minnesota to host one next.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Ducks/Kings stadium series game was good enough for me. I don't really care to see the Ducks in another one. The actual hockey game usually isn't as good in the outdoor games compared to normal. It would be cool for Colorado or Minnesota to host one next.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I do not think there should be more than one a season. I think they should combine the outdoor game with the all star game. But I am not a fan of either format so combining them means there is only one day of ridiculous hockey antics.

This is pretty much exactly why all the of the "experts" are completely full of crap when it comes to their "inside sources" and the "trade chatter" they allegedly hear. Not one single "expert" had this on their radar.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Toronto clearly going all-in for Auston Matthews. The only decent player they acquired in the trade (Michalek) is out indefinitely with a broken finger.

This tank job is more obvious than when Buffalo traded for Evander Kane last season. Only difference is, I'm 99% sure the league will fix it so that Toronto actually wins the draft lottery instead of Edmonton

This is pretty much exactly why all the of the "experts" are completely full of crap when it comes to their "inside sources" and the "trade chatter" they allegedly hear. Not one single "expert" had this on their radar.

That's because Lamoriello and Murray are older-mold GMs, and Lou is pretty darned shifty into the bargain. Clam up and get the job done without the fanfare. Until Canadian wire service systems break because Maple Leafs, OMG! Phaneuf traded, WTH! Panic/spaz attack/Twitter meltdown/TSN goes bonkers!

Toronto clearly going all-in for Auston Matthews. The only decent player they acquired in the trade (Michalek) is out indefinitely with a broken finger.

This tank job is more obvious than when Buffalo traded for Evander Kane last season. Only difference is, I'm 99% sure the league will fix it so that Toronto actually wins the draft lottery instead of Edmonton

I didn't read it as a tank job so much as getting yet another bad Burkie contract off the books and more deadweight out of that locker room. Buddy of mine suggested, and with some good reasoning behind it, that this is what was needed to set up for Stamkos. But if they can sink low enough, Matthews to TOR instead of EDM, no question there.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That's because Lamoriello and Murray are older-mold GMs, and Lou is pretty darned shifty into the bargain. Clam up and get the job done without the fanfare. Until Canadian wire service systems break because Maple Leafs, OMG! Phaneuf traded, WTH! Panic/spaz attack/Twitter meltdown/TSN goes bonkers!

I didn't read it as a tank job so much as getting yet another bad Burkie contract off the books and more deadweight out of that locker room. Buddy of mine suggested, and with some good reasoning behind it, that this is what was needed to set up for Stamkos. But if they can sink low enough, Matthews to TOR instead of EDM, no question there.

Isn't this how most GMs operate? It sure is how Yzerman operates, yet every "expert" out there seemed to know exactly who Yzerman was talking to and exactly what he wanted in return. And that included alleged communications between Yzerman and Bryan Murray, as many "experts" were saying that Ottawa was one of the teams really interested in Drouin.

I agree that Toronto benefits hugely from moving that bad contract, but that deal could have been done this coming summer if their goal was just to clear cap space. It's not like Toronto or Ottawa are making a strong playoff push right now and needed it to happen. IMO, Toronto was probably pushing for it now because they wanted to get much worse over their final 30 games. And whatever anyone thinks of Phaneuf, swapping him out for Jared Cowen does make Toronto a lot worse.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I agree that Toronto benefits hugely from moving that bad contract, but that deal could have been done this coming summer if their goal was just to clear cap space. It's not like Toronto or Ottawa are making a strong playoff push right now and needed it to happen. IMO, Toronto was probably pushing for it now because they wanted to get much worse over their final 30 games. And whatever anyone thinks of Phaneuf, swapping him out for Jared Cowen does make Toronto a lot worse.

Which is why I'm wondering what else is in the works. Stammer is a UFA at season's end, and IF Yzerman cannot make things work now, he certainly does not want to lose him for nothing. I prefer rampant, slightly off the wall speculation to suggested insider info, personally.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Toronto clearly going all-in for Auston Matthews. The only decent player they acquired in the trade (Michalek) is out indefinitely with a broken finger.

This tank job is more obvious than when Buffalo traded for Evander Kane last season. Only difference is, I'm 99% sure the league will fix it so that Toronto actually wins the draft lottery instead of Edmonton

All the heat from fans accusing of awarding the "draft" to EDM is catching up. Also bonus points because Toronto is an Original 6, as Chicago's window is closing, the perfect timing for Toronto to take over. It was Detroit > Chicago > Toronto.